I LLJNO I S
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
PRODUCTION NOTE
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.
No. 185 is missing
fl2~,2~v
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
R
E
P
0
II
T
S
Technical Report No.
186
INCREASING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE THROUGH ANALOGY:
ITS EFFECTS UPON COMPREHENSION AND LEARNING
David A. Hayes
University of Georgia
Robert J. Tierney
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
October 1980
Center for the Study of Reading
Dim
IN, -UiOI
The National
Institute of
Education
U.S. Department of
Health. Education and Welfare
Washington.D.C. 20208
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
51 Gerty Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61820
BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN INC.
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
CENTER FOR THE
STUDY OF READING
Technical Report No.
186
INCREASING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE THROUGH ANALOGY:
ITS EFFECTS UPON COMPREHENSION AND LEARNING
David A. Hayes
University of Georgia
Robert J. Tierney
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
October 1980
University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
51 Gerty Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
The preparation of this manuscript was supported primarily by the National
We would
Institute of Education under Contract No. HEW-NIE-C-400-76-0116.
like to acknowledge and thank Wilbur S. Ames and Patricia L. Anders for
their assistance in the development of the study.
Effects of Analogy
Increasing Background Knowledge through Analogy:
Its Effects upon Comprehension and Learning
Much of what is expected to be learned in school must be learned
through reading and studying text.
text depends
What can actually be learned from
largely on the facility with which learners deal with
the way it presents information and on the way it is augmented by
teachers.
Accordingly, teachers must attend to the way in which text
is presented to learners if the thought processes to be elicited are
to result in desired learning outcomes.
Among other things, teachers
must take account of students' existing knowledge as they prepare instructional activities to facilitate the learning of new information.
In situations where students may lack the particular background knowledge
necessary for reading unfamiliar material,
address the issue of providing it.
teachers must somehow
Teachers have long claimed that an
effective way to do this is to provide a bridge between the knowledge
the learners do have and unfamiliar information with analogy.
They
have argued that analogy gives students a familiar interpretative
framework for holding together novel
information until
it
is
The purpose of the present study was to explore this claim.
learned.
Specifi-
cally, the present study attempted to verify whether attempts to
increase background knowledge through analogy would have an impact upon
readers' comprehension and learning, and more specifically, whether varying
Effects of Analogy
2
the presentation of analogy would differentially affect comprehension and
learning from unfamiliar prose.
Background to the Study
The purpose of analogy is to explain.
Analogy does this by isolating
for comparison a set of relations held in common by two sets of complex
entities--complex entities being those which comprise two or more interrelated elements.
The correspondence between the elements being compared
may vary in precision and detail.
In some analogies there is not an
isomorphic correspondence between the features of the entities under comparison.
But those features may be similar enough to enhance understanding
without being exactly alike.
Or there may be correspondence between some
but not all of the features.
In stricter kinds of analogies, there is a
one-to-one correspondence between the features of the items being compared
and the relations presented within each of them.
It is the provision of
explicit terms common to the entities under comparison which originally
gave rise to the notion of analogy
in formal
thought,
Used as a teaching aid, analogy provides a comparison which can explain
something difficult to understand by pointing out its similarities to
something easy to understand,
Once new material
is
learned, it in turn
may serve as an analogous referent for comparison with. still other material
to be learned.
In accord with these claims, educational writers advocating the
instructional use of analogy maintain that it can increase the speed and
efficiency of the learning process.
They also claim that analogy facili-
tates an increased understanding of the old subject material, as well as
Effects of Analogy
3
enthusiasm for new subject matter.
Kahn (1978) and Swick and Miller (1975)
assert that in reading instruction, analogies illustrate the necessity for
following certain steps to achieve a desired goal and for taking different
approaches and attitudes toward different kinds of textual materials.
Nelson (1975) posits that analogy is useful
in teaching technical vocabulary,
forming hypotheses, and discovering concepts.
Science educators Weller
(1970) and Smith and Wilson (1974) argue that analogies aid in bringing
about an initial understanding of scientific concepts and that students
are enabled by those analogies to build on the ideas thus acquired.
Capps
(1979) suggests that the use of analogies which are taken from the language
arts can be useful
in teaching mathematics.
Similarly, Oliphant (1972)
advocates the use of analogies from the language arts for explaining
certain musical
concepts to children.
Educators also appear to be aware of the limitations of analogy and
emphasize that care should be taken in its application,
If the resemblance
between the terms of an analogy is slight, the analogy may be misleading.
Because subjects are analogous in many respects, students may have difficulty accepting those respects in which subjects are not analogous,
Similarly, students with insufficient background knowledge may think of the
analogous model as the concept to be learned rather than an illustration of
some other concept.
Philosophers interested in the theoretical and practical aspects of
learning and thinking maintain that analogy facilitates comprehension of
complex concepts by making them intellectually satisfying.
Campbell
(1920)
Effects of Analogy
4
and Black (1962),
for example, assert that analogies are important not only
in formulating and illustrating concepts but also in extending them to deal
with new phenomena and new domains of phenomena.
Black, for instance,
advocates the use of analogy for comprehending complex theories.
He
believes that analogies are useful for making properties of a theoretical
model better known, arguing that if learners are sufficiently familiar
with the realm of knowledge to which the analogy is drawn, they can become
versatile in its application and draw inferences from it.
In recent years a number of cognitive psychologists have specified the
important role played by background knowledge in comprehension and alluded
to the possible benefits of analogy.
Within a theoretic framework which
derives form the notion of schematism conceived by Kant (1781/1966),
developed notably by Bartlett (1932) and Spearman (1923), and recently
given prominence by Anderson, Spiro, and Anderson (1978),
Neisser (1976),
Rumelhart and Ortony (1977), and others, the function and power of analogy
for providing a bridge from existing knowledge to new knowledge has been
highlighted.
Characterizing knowledge as residing within structured thought
processes, these writers have hypothesized that learning involves the generalization of knowledge to incorporate new content which is analogously
structured.
New content is structured to fit within the existing knowledge
system, and the knowledge structure is modified through certain mental events
to accommodate the new content.
Analogy accesses this process by presenting
unfamiliar content structured in such a way as to directly engage knowledge
which is correspondingly structured (Rumelhart, Note 1).
Effects of Analogy
5
Despite the practical utility of analogy claimed by educators, and
despite the accounting for why it should work by philosophers and psychological theorists, the experimental
literature in education and psychology
provides little empirical basis for issuing favorable statements about the
instructional value of analogy nor, in fact, any attempts to increase
background knowledge.
Research on the pedagogical application of analogy
has been reported by only a few investigators, and the investigations they
report have not produced strong evidence to support the instructional use
of analogy.
The strongest empirical evidence of the instructional value of analogy
has been offered by Ausubel and Fitzgerald (1961), who found that giving
readers an advance expository passage on a familiar topic analogous to an
unfamiliar topic to be learned from another expository passage resulted
in superior learning.
Other research has not offered such positive findings.
Royer and Cable (1975, 1976) studied the effect of advance presentation of
analogous material which was either concrete or abstract, but they did not
directly address questions related to the instructional efficacy of analogy.
Mayer (1975) found that analogies as well as illustrations and examples
appear to elicit relevant knowledge structures for learning, but he drew
no conclusions about the effects of analogy per se.
Dowell1
Investigations by
(1968) and Drugge (1977) found no significant effects stemming from
the instructional use of analogy with high school students.
Of the
investigations conducted to date, only the Ausubel and Fitzgerald study
Effects of Analogy
6
has attempted to weigh the effect of prior knowledge of analogous
materials.
None of the studies has attempted to account for interest
related to the analogous materials.
Furthermore, all studies have worked
from a rather restricted definition of comprehension, and few studies
have systematically examined the effects of analogies per se.
Research on analogy also seems especially warranted on theoretical
grounds.
Of particular interest is the unique role analogy is thought to
play in bringing to bear learners' existing knowledge in order to render
new knowledge accessible.
By studying analogy from a theoretical per-
spective recently revived in cognitive psychology, schema theory, it may
be possible to explore the cognitive processes involved in learning by
analogy.
Since schema theory suggests that what a person already knows
directs the processes by which new information is acquired and used, such
a theoretical perspective appears to lend itself well to the study of
learning by analogy.
In its current stage of development, schema theory
is limited to accounting for the processes of comprehension and memory
retrieval.
As several theorists (Norman, Genter, & Stevens, 1976; Rumelhart
& Ortony, 1977; Thorndyke & Yekovich, in press) have emphasized, schema
theory needs further development if it is to adequately explain how learning
takes place.
Rumelhart and Ortony suggested
in their paper based upon a
composite of schema theoretical notions:
We have postulated no mechanisms whereby new schemata can grow and
old ones evolve.
Indeed, this is a central problem for schema
theorists and very little work has been done on it.
Nevertheless, the
nature of schemata suggests a number of plausible mechanisms whereby
new schemata can be produced.
(Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977, p. 123)
Effects of Analogy
7
The mechanisms they go on to describe are the processes of schema specialization and schema generalization.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of attempts to
increase background knowledge by having students learn from prose material
which was augmented by analogy, and to use this examination to probe
theoretical and practical questions of relevance to learning from text.
To this end, the study examined (a) the effects of different modes of
presenting unfamiliar information--especially through the use of analogy-upon the type of information generated by students of varying levels of relevant
background knowledge; as well as (b) the effects of these modes of presentation of information upon the ability of these same students to answer
questions developed
in accordance with schema-theoretic notions of knowl-
edge generalization and specialization.
of information were:
The different modes of presentation
(a) analogy embedded in text,
(b) analogy given as
the topic of an antecedent text, (c) analogy embedded in text in conjunction
with an analogous-antecedent text, and (d) information presented on a topic
without explicit analogies.
It was with this purpose in mind that the
research question was formulated:
When a text on an unfamiliar topic is given to students with
different levels of knowledge of an analogous topic, how will
learning from the text be influenced by (a) analogy embedded
in a text,
(b) analogous information given as the topic of an
antecedent text,
(c) analogy embedded in text in conjunction
with an analogous antecedent text, and (d) information presented
on a topic without explicit analogies?
Effects of Analogy
8
The topic chosen to be learned from the prose materials was the game
of cricket.
ball.
Where analogies were used, they were drawn.to the game of base-
It was decided that the game of cricket would serve as a satisfactory
topic for the instructional texts since American high school students could
be assumed to be unfamiliar with cricket (Abramson, 1979).
Alternatively,
the familiarity of one of its analogs, the game of baseball, could reasonably
be assumed.
The research question was addressed by probing a number of subsidiary
questions.
These subsidiary questions tested analogy's influence on the
transfer of learning from prose materials to recalling other,
topically
related, text and to making appropriate predictions and discriminations on
a multiple-choice test.
Questions concerning the recall of topically related text focused
on the amount and type of information generated on recall
tasks.
It was
assumed that a person's written recall performance would be affected by
the extent of knowledge related to the topic of the text and, further,
that inferences could be drawn about the character of a person's cognitive
processing on the basis of the amount and generality level of the information
recalled.
Based upon the notion (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Drum, Note 2)
that generality of a person's memory for text reflects extent to which its
information has been assimilated, three types of information were identified
in subjects' recall protocols:
Explicit text reproductions, text-entailed
inferences, and text-evoked inferences.
Effects of Analogy
9
Other questions subsidiary to the research question dealt with analogy's
effect on the ability of the subjects to predict appropriate outcomes to
open-ended situations related to the topic of the unfamiliar text and to
discriminate between instances which were and were not related to the topic
of the unfamiliar text.
These tasks were developed as a means of approaching
an assessment of the learning mechanism of knowledge generalization and
knowledge specialization.
Procedures
Subjects
Subjects were eleventh
and
twelfth graders of average and above-
average reading ability from a rural
California.
Eleventh
and
for the following reasons:
suburban high school
in Northern
twelfth graders were selected from this school
(a)
Two previous studies related to the
instructional use of analogy (Dowell, 1968; Drugge, 1977) had involved
high school students;
typical
(b) the student population represented a wide and
range of social and economic backgrounds,
The elimination of
students of below-average reading proficiency was prompted by our desire
to eliminate subjects who might have difficulty responding to the text.
Teacher judgment and standardized reading test results were used as
criteria for selecting students.
On the basis of responses given on the surveys of interest and prior
knowledge assessment, students from the subject pool were grouped according
to three levels of baseball knowledge (high, moderate, low) and three levels
of baseball interest (consistently high, mixed, consistently low).
Levels
Effects of Analogy
10
of baseball knowledge were included in the analysis in order to determine
the effects of the different experimental treatments relative to level of
prior analogous knowledge.
Data on levels of interest in sports and
baseball were not included in the analysis; rather, they were used to
comparably distribute subjects across treatment groups according to levels
of interest in sports and baseball,
From these strata, subjects were proportionately assigned to five
treatment groups at random.
Each treatment group consisted of 21 subjects.
The number of subjects in each treatment group actually participating in
the experiment ranged from 19 to 21 subjects due to absenteeism on the day
of the experiment.
Experimental Materials
A number of materials were developed in order to examine the effects
of attempts to increase background knowledge for unfamiliar topics with
passages excluding and including analogies.
These materials included:
a
pretest survey of general interest in sports and specific interest in
baseball, a pretest to assess background knowledge for baseball, a knowledgeevoking text on the game of baseball, two instructional texts on the game
of cricket, two control texts, two passages for recall tasks, and a
discrimination-prediction survey for posttest purposes.
General
interest in sports was estimated from subjects' responses to
a multiple-choice sentence item of the form, 'My general feeling about sports
is. . . ."
Possible responses ranged from "like sports very much" to
Effects of Analogy
11
"dislike sports very much."
The data obtained suggested that all subjects
involved in the study had a similar interest in sports and, therefore,
general interest in sports would not confound specific interest in baseball.
Levels of specific interest in baseball was ascertained through a
rating scale and ranking procedure (Kerlinger, 1973).
The first of these
measures presented subjects with a list of ten team sports, one of which was
baseball, and asked for an indication of interest in each one independent
of interest in the others.
Students rated interest in each sport along a
continuum for "strongly like" to "strongly dislike."
included the same list of ten team sports.
The ranking scale
Students ranked (1-10) the
sports from most to least favorite separately for playing and for watching
them.
In order to assess subjects' prior knowledge of baseball, a 22-item
Likert-type survey was devised.
Knowledge of baseball was assessed in
order to determine the extent to which it systematically interacted with
the treatment variables.
The content of the baseball knowledge survey
included baseball terms, rules, and situations of play that persons knowledgeable about baseball would know.
Salient points of information presented
in the expository text on baseball were included as well as points of
baseball
information to which analogical
tional text on cricket.
reference was made in the instruc-
For example, terms such as ground rule double,
batter's box, and leading off were included because reference was made to
them in presenting their respective cricket analogs, boundary-four, popping
crease, and backing up.
Items on the scale required students to select a
Effects of Analogy
12
response ranging from "definitely true" to "definitely false."
To check
on the scale's validity, the performance of assumed experts was compared
with that of assumed novices.
The expert population comprised students
who had played interscholastic baseball; the novice population consisted
of recently arrived foreign students.
The difference between the expert
mean (42.8) and the novice (1.7) provided strong support for the validity
of the scale.
As indicated by a split-half reliability coefficient of
.92, the survey reliably discriminated a variety of levels of baseball
knowledge.
The knowledge-evoking text was included in the experiment in order to
examine the effect of advance presentation of information analogous to
the topic of the instructional texts.
It described the game of baseball,
the topic which served as the familiar analog for explaining the game of
cricket in one of the instructional texts.
In accordance with Ausubel's
(1960) notion that "the most important factor in influencing learning is
the quantity, clarity, and organization of the learner's present knowledge"
(p. 50),
the knowledge-evoking text devoted ample discussion to those
subsuming concepts in the baseball text that would be useful for learning
the analogous content of the cricket text.
Those subsuming concepts provided
the organizational framework for presenting the content of the knowledgeevoking text on baseball as well as the instructional texts on cricket.
The subsuming concepts included in the knowledge-evoking text in the order
given were:
an overview of the game and its purpose; the playing field;
scoring; the infield as the center of the game's activity; the role of the
Effects of Analogy
13
pitcher; the role of the batters and base runners; putting out batters and
base runners; turns at bat; and completing the game.
(Throughout the paper
the knowledge-evoking text is referred to as the analogous-antecedent text.)
The instructional texts were based on an article on cricket in
Webster's Sports Dictionary (1976).
First, an informational text strictly
about the game of cricket was written to parallel
baseball text.
scoring,
the knowledge-evoking
It included an overview of the game, the playing field,
the centerfield,
the role of the bowler,
the role of batsmen,
dismissal of batsmen, turns at bat and completing the game.
To create the
instructional text, including analogies, selected target structures were
rewritten to provide direct feature comparisons with baseball.
Portions
of these texts appear in Figure 1.
Insert Figure I about here,
Two control texts were constructed.
The first paralleled the structure
of the knowledge-evoking text on baseball; the second, the instructional
text on cricket.
Neither contained any analogies.
The first text was
about weather (based upon material from Weather by Lehr, Burnett, Zin, &
McNaught, 1965, pp. 10-11,
making
(based upon material
53-56); the second addressed the topic of filmtaken from Young Filmmakers by Larson,
1969).
The two test passages were composites of newspaper articles about
cricket taken from the sports section of The Australian (December 1978),
a daily newspaper published in Sydney, Australia,
instances of text for evaluating subjects
Providing two such
comprehension was an attempt
Effects of Analogy
14
to increase the generalizability of the study's findings by replication,
Different cricket match situations were presented within two different
idea structures.
This permitted identification of subjects who appeared
to be more versatile in dealing with information about cricket, that is,
who could use the structure of the information to their advantage (Meyer, 1977;
Meyer,
Brandt,
presented
& Bluth,
Note 3).
An example of one of these texts
is
in Figure 2.
Insert Figure 2 about here.
As a check on the readability of the experimental
materials,
all texts
were reviewed by classroom teachers, all of whom had taught at an eleventhgrade level, and qualified university personnel.
They deemed all texts
appropriate for the subjects for whom they were intended.
by the Fry Readability Graph
(1968),
all
As determined
texts were assessed as being at
either the sixth- or seventh-grade level.
A discrimination-prediction survey was developed to appraise the
extent to which subjects learned the topic of the instructional texts.
The
survey presented ten cricket match situations and asked subjects to choose
the most likely result of that situation from a group of five results for
each situation.
Twenty-two out of 50 items were not cricket items,
In
addition to choosing the most likely result to the cricket match situation,
subjects were to identify those items that were not within the scope of
the game of cricket.
As a check on the appropriateness of the test,
Effects of Analogy
15
educators of Australian and British nationality who reviewed the instrument
agreed the scale accurately depicted aspects of cricket.
Data Collection Procedures
Data for the study were collected on two separate occasions.
On the
first occasion, pre-experimental data were collected on some 150 eleventhand twelth-grade students in order to assess their prior knowledge and
interests.
From these data, students were grouped according to three
levels of baseball knowledge (high, moderate, low) and three levels of
baseball
interest (consistently high, mixed, consistently low) and propor-
tionately assigned to five treatment groups at random.
The number of
subjects in each treatment group ranged from 19 to 21.
On the second
occasion, data were collected on 100 of these students during the experiment
conducted as an activity in the subjects' regular classes.
In the experiment
each of the five groups of subjects read a different sequence of passages
corresponding to the five treatment conditions and then responded to the
test passages as well as the discrimination-prediction survey.
In accordance
with the sequence of passages read by each group, these treatment groups
were labelled:
B + C(A), X + C(A), B + C, X + C, and X + X.
Group 1 (B + C(A)) read a baseball passage (B),
then an instruc-
tional cricket passage with analogies (C(A)l).
Group 2 (X + C(A)) read an unrelated passage (X), then an instructional cricket passage with analogies (C(A)).
Group 3 (B + C) read a baseball passage (B),
then an instructional
cricket passage without analogies (C),
Effects of Analogy
16
Group 4 (X + C) read an unrelated passage (X),
then an instruc-
tional cricket passage without analogies (C).
Group 5 (X + X) read two unrelated passages.
All subjects followed the same procedure in reading the passages and
responding to the comprehension and learning tasks.
Following the intro-
duction to the experiment and some practice exercises, subjects were
directed by their teachers to read the first
two passages.
The directions
given by the teacher were to read and study the selection very carefully
in order to learn as much as they could about the subject of the passage.
They were allowed to mark the passages if they cared to do so and were told
to regard the activity as a class assignment.
Following the reading of
the first and second passages, subjects were directed to read the first
test passage and try to remember everything they could.
Upon completion,
they were instructed to write down everything they could remember.
They
were given similar directions for the second test passage and were then
directed to complete the discrimination prediction survey.
Dependent Measures
With a system of text analysis proposed by Kintsch (1974)
by Turner and Green (1977),
and codified
template text bases of the test passages and
protocol text bases of subjects' written recalls were obtained.
Protocol
text bases were scored by comparing them to their corresponding template
text bases according to a procedure suggested by Drum (Note 2).
First, a
template text base for each test passage was prepared as described above.
Effects of Analogy
17
Then, referring to the template text base, propositions of each protocol
text base were identified as either repeating propositions of the template
text base or representing two levels of inferences drawn from the test
passages.
Propositions of the protocol text base identified as repeating propositions of the template text base were designated text reproductions.
It
was not necessary that a protocol proposition be recalled verbatim to be
counted as a text reproduction.
A protocol proposition was counted as a
text reproduction if the content words used to represent its arguments and
relations were synonymous with the words so used in the template proposition.
A protocol proposition which omitted arguments of a text base proposition
was still counted as a text reproduction if the relation and at least one
other argument remained intact.
Protocol propositions representing deviations from the text were of
two broad categories:
propositions which could be directly linked with
template propositions and propositions that could not be directly linked
with template propositions.
Protocol
propositions that could be directly linked to the text base
were designated text entailments.
were identified during scoring.
Three types of text-entailed propositions
The first type of text entailment was a
proposition which served to summarize certain propositions of the text
base.
This type of proposition generalized the arguments and relations of
two or more specific text base propositions in such a way as to preserve
their common meaning at the expense of the specific meanings represented
Effects of Analogy
18
by each in the text base.
The second type of text entailment was a
proposition directly related to a single proposition of the text base.
It
was a text base proposition whose arguments and relations had been generalized
to the extent that similarity to the meaning of the text base proposition
was not preserved.
information
A third type of text entailment added case-related
to the text base.
This type of text entailment was a modifier
proposition complementing a predicate proposition of the text base.
Since
these types of text entailments were not always discrete, the three types
were collapsed into a single count of text entailments for purposes of
analyzing the data.
Protocol propositions that could not be directly linked to specific
propositions of the text base were designated text-evoked propositions.
Text-evoked propositions were thematically related to the content of the
text base.
They were generalizations drawn from the text without any
connection to specific propositions of the text base.
Drum (Note 2)
provides a fourth category of recalls to include implausible, irrelevant,
non-text-related
propositions.
In this study such recalls were not scored.
The text-evoked category in this study included only plausible and relevant
units of information.
These three types of protocol propositions (text reproductions, text
entailments, and text-evoked propositions) were tabulated for each subject's
recall for each test passage with interrater agreement of .92 on approximately
10% of the sample.
These three scores provided the raw data for the analysis
of the recall protocols.
Effects of Analogy
19
Responses to the discrimination-prediction survey were scored in such
a way as to yield three measures.
First, an accuracy of prediction score
was determined from the number of correct selections of most-likely outcomes
to specific cricket match situations.
A second measure was derived by
counting the number of such outcomes which were within the scope of cricket
regardless of their likelihood.
crimination.
This was similar to a context-bound dis-
A third measure was generated by assessing whether the subjects
were able to discriminate cricket from noncricket outcomes without being
given a specific cricket match situation.
This was similar to a less context-
bound discrimination.
Analysis
The data for each dependent variable and each passage were subjected
to a number of separate two-way analyses of variance.
By examining the data
for each passage separately we were able to assess whether the findings
would remain stable across different but similar passages; by examining
the data for each variable separately, we were able to study any differences
which resulted for a measure independently.
Specifically, these examinations
enabled the following questions to be addressed:
Was the impact resulting from attempts to increase background
knowledge consistent across passages?
Did variations in the impact of attempts to increase background
knowledge upon selected variables coincide with schema-theoretic
notions of knowledge acquisition and other theoretical notions
of reader involvement?
Effects of Analogy
20
Where significant differences were found, the Scheffe S-method (Scheff6,
1959) was used to examine various comparisons of the groups pairwise and
in combination.
These comparisons were directed toward answering the
following:
Did any attempts to increase background knowledge influence
comprehension and
learning?
Did attempts to increase background knowledge using alternative modes of analogy influence comprehension and learning
differentially?
Did readers with varying background knowledge of the analogous
material
respond differentially to these separate comprehension
and learning tasks?
Results
The results of the two-way ANOVA's (three
levels of background knowl-
edge and five levels of treatment) as well as the results of the Scheffd
follow-up tests are reported separetely for each variable and passage.
Total Number of Units Recalled
The means and standard deviations of the total units of information
recalled from the first and second test passage are reported in Tables I
and 2, respectively.
The ANOVA for the first test passage revealed no
significant differences due to an interaction effect, F(4,85) = .892,
p > .05, nor were there differences across levels of text-analogous
Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here.
Effects of Analogy
21
information, F(2,85) = .759, p > .05.
Significant differences were observed
across levels of treatment, F(4,85) = 5.810, p < .001.
Pairwise and combin-
ation post hoc comparisons by Scheffd's S-method indicated that the control
group significantly differed from each and all other groups.
Otherwise,
there were no significant differences between or among groups.
For the second test passage, the results of the ANOVA showed no
significant differences due to interaction effects, F(8,85) = .742, p > .05.
Nor were there differences across levels of text-analogous knowledge,
F(2,85) = 1.946, p > .05.
levels of treatment,
Significant differences were observed across
F(4,85) = 4.44,
_ < .01.
Pairwise and combination
post hoc comparisons by Scheff6's S-method indicated that the control group
significantly differed from each and all other groups.
Otherwise,
there
were no significant differences between or among groups.
Across both passages these data suggested that attempts to increase
background knowledge were more beneficial
no attempt was made.
Otherwise,
than a control condition in which
reminiscent of the Royer and Cable (1976)
study, the overall measure of the present study revealed no unique effects
related to analogy.
Just as the Royer and Cable study was limited by its
overall recall score, so this particular measure in the present study
provided little or no differential information about subjects' recalls.
The total
recall score reflected recall performance in a general way.
the sum of all the information given in a recall,
kind of information generated.
As
it did not indicate the
Effects of Analogy
22
Number of Text Reproductions
The means and standard deviations for the number of text reproductions
contained in the recalls of subjects are reported in Tables 3 and 4 for
passages I and 2, respectively,
Analysis of the data of the first recall
task revealed no significant interaction effect for the number of text
reproductions, F(8,85) = 1.55, p > .05.
Nor were significant differences
revealed across levels of text-analogous knowledge, F(2,85) = 1.07, p > .05.
However, significant differences were noted across treatment groups' recalls
of the first test passages, F(4,85) = 2.77, p < .05.
Scheff6 post hoc
pairwise comparisons indicated that, on the first test passage, the group
given analogy embedded in the instructional text in conjunction with the
analogous antecedent text (B + C(A)) produced significantly more textreproduced information than the group given analogy embedded in the instructional text in conjunction with the unrelated antecedent text (X + C(A)).
Otherwise, there were no significant differences on the first test passage
between groups given instructional
texts.
On the first passage, the control
group differed significantly from groups given instructional texts in
number of text reproductions generated,
Insert Table 3 about here.
Analysis of the data of the second recall task yielded similar results.
There was
no significant interaction effect for the number of text repro-
ductions given by subjects, F(8,85) = 1.118, p > .05.
In other words, no
method of presenting the texts on cricket in this investigation seemed to
Effects of Analogy
23
hold any better effect than any of the others for promoting the recall of
topically related passages by subjects with particular levels of knowledge
about baseball.
Nor were significant differences revealed across levels
of text-analogous knowledge, F(2,85) = .150, p > .05,
However, significant
differences were noted across treatment groups' recalls of the second test
passage, F(4,85) = 3.492, p < .05.
Scheffd post hoc pairwise comparisons
indicated that, on both test passages, the group given analogy embedded in
the instructional text in conjunction with the analogous antecedent text
(B + C(A)) produced significantly more text-reproduced
information than
the group given only analogy embedded in the instructional text (X + C(A)).
Otherwise, there were no significant differences on the second test passage
between groups given instructional texts.
Scheffd post hoc pairwise, as
well as combined, comparisons showed that on the second test passage, the
control group produced significantly less text reproduced information than
each and all groups given instructional
texts.
Insert Table 4 about here,
In general, these analyses across passages suggest that the more
information subjects were given about the unfamiliar topic the more text
reproductions they produced.
The group given analogy both in the antecedent
text and embedded in the instructional text
reproductions than the other groups.
(B + C(A)) generated more text
Furthermore, all of the groups given
some information in antecedent texts generated more than the control group,
which was not given such texts.
Effects of Analogy
24
Number of Text Entailments
The means and standard deviations derived for the total number of
text entailments in the students'written recalls for test passages 1
and 2 are reported in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
The analysis for
the first recall task showed no significant interaction between levels
of text-analogous knowledge and treatment, F(8,85) = .864, p > .05.
Nor
were there significant differences across levels of text-analogous knowledge, F(2,85) = 2.697, p > .05.
Significant differences in the mean number
of text entailments were observed across the treatment groups, F(4,85) =
7.431, p
< .001.
Scheffe post hoc comparisons indicated that the control
group produced significantly less text-entailed information than the groups
given the instructional texts.
The groups given antecedent instructional
texts dealing with the analogous topic (B + C(A), B + C combined) produced
significantly more text-entailed information than did groups which were
given the non analogous antecedent texts (X + C(A), X + C combined).
Among the groups given instructional texts with analogy, the group given
analogies embedded in the instructional text with the unrelated antecedent
text (X + C(A)) produced significantly less entailed information than the
other two groups given texts with analogy (B + C(A), B + C).
Insert Table 5 about here.
The analysis of variance for the second recall task showed no significant interactions between levels of text-analogous knowledge and levels of
treatment, F(8,85) = 1.127, p > .05.
No significant differences were
Effects of Analogy
25
found across levels of text-analogous knowledge, F(2,85) = 1.008, p > .05.
And no significant differences were found across treatment groups, F(4,85) =
2.264, p > .05.
Insert Table 6 about here.
The results of these analyses were consistent with the research assumption that reader interaction with text results in modified recollections of
the text.
Antecedent instructional texts dealing with the analogous topic
apparently promoted reader-text engagement on the first test passage at a
level which resulted in a greater number of text entailments than would
have been produced otherwise, assuming that the recall of the control group
and the group not given analogy represent the frequency of text-entailed
information that would have otherwise been produced.
That the treatment group differences on the first
recall
task did not
hold for the second recall task may be explained by the data as possibly
resulting from a combination of two factors.
The first contributing factor
may have been that the control group learned enough from the first passage
to generalize the propositions of the second test passage.
group's mean text entailment recall
passage.
The control
improved by 45% on the second test
A second possible explanation is that the second recall task
appears to have neutralized the beneficial effect of the analogy.
The analogy
groups' mean recall diminished, altogether by about 30%, while the mean recall
of the instructional group without analogy remained about the same.
Effects of Analogy
26
Number of Text-Evoked Units
The means and standard deviations derived for the total number of
text-evoked units in the students' written recalls for test passages 1
and 2 are reported in Tables 7 and 8, respectively.
The results of this
ANOVA did not reveal a significant interaction effect in the number of
text-evoked units of information given by subjects across levels of textanalogous knowledge across treatment groups, F(8,85) = 1.317, p > .05.
Nor were there significant differences across levels of text-analogous
knowledge on the first test passage, F(2,85) = .889, p > .05.
Significant
differences were found in the number of text-evoked units of information
given by subjects across treatment groups, F(4,85) = 3.26, p < .05.
Insert Table 7 about here.
Scheffe post hoc combination comparisons showed that the groups given
analogy (B + C(A), X + C(A),
B + C combined) produced significantly more
text-evoked information than the other groups (X + C, X + X combined), and
that the group given analogy embedded in the instructional text in conjunction with the unrelated antecedent text (X + C(A)) produced significantly
more text-evoked information than the other groups.
In terms of the latter,
pairwise comparisons showed that the group given analogies embedded in the
instructional text with the unrelated antecedent text (X + C(A)) produced
significantly more text-evoked information than the group given no analogy
and the group given analogy both embedded in the instructional text and
with the antecedent text.
Effects of Analogy
27
For the second passage, the number of text-evoked units of information
given by subjects across levels of knowledge across treatment groups were
not significantly different,
F(S,85) = 1.861,
p > .05.
Nor were significant
differences found across treatment groups, F(4,85) = 1.912, p > .05.
Sig-
nificant differences were found in the number of text-evoked units of
information given by subjects across levels of text-analogous knowledge,
F(2,85) = 3.673, p < .05.
Insert Table 8 about here.
Pairwise as well as combination post hoc comparisons by the Scheffe
method showed that subjects with a high level of text-analogous knowledge
produced significantly more text-evoked information on the second recall
task than did subjects at either of the other two levels of text-analogous
knowledge.
Subjects with moderate and low levels of text-analogous knowl-
edge did not significantlydiffer
information they produced.
in the number of units of text-evoked
This finding suggested that students' back-
ground knowledge had an influence on the extent to which their recall
included text-evoked recall units, or was reader-based, regardless of the
treatment condition received.
Responses to Prediction Task
The means and standard deviations based upon the subjects' responses
to the prediction task (selection of appropriate outcomes to cricket-match
situations) are presented in Table 9.
Analyses of the subjects' performance
Effects of Analogy
28
on this task revealed that the interaction effect was not significant.
There were no significant differences across
levels of text-analogous
knowledge across treatment groups, F(8,85) = 2,016, p > .05.
Nor were
there differences across levels of text-analogous knowledge, F(2,85) = 2.117,
p > .05.
Significant differences across treatment groups were indicated,
F(4,85) = 43 .185, p < .001.
In pairwise as well as combination post hoc
comparisons, the control group made significantly fewer correct predictions
than did the other treatment groups.
There were no significant differences
across treatment groups given instructional texts.
In other words, by itself
this measure indicated that subjects given background information on the
game of cricket were better able to predict appropriate outcomes to openended cricket match situations; no differences in the ability to generalize
that background information could be attributed to different modes of analogy.
Insert Table 9 about here.
Responses to DiscriminationAasks
The means and standard deviations derived for the discrimination
tasks are presented in Tables 10 and 11.
Analyses of subjects' performance
on the discrimination tasks suggested that therewere differences on the
first
measure (the number of irrelevant predictions when students were
asked to specify the most-likely outcome) but not on the second (the number
of topically inconsistent items of information specified by students).
Effects of Analogy
29
On neither measure was there a significant
interaction effect,
F(8,85) =
1.505, p > .05, F(8,85) = .319, p > .05; nor were there significant differences
across levels of text-analogous knowledge, F(2,85) = 2.398, p > .05, F(2,85) =
.649, p > .05.
There were no significant differences across treatment groups
in number of items identified as not belonging within the domain of the topic
to be learned, F(4,85) = 1.547, p < .05.
however,
across treatment groups
Significant differences were noted,
in the selection of items related to the
analog rather than to the topic itself in the prediction task,
F(4,85) =
7.090, p < .001.
Insert Tables 10 and 11 about here.
Pairwise as well as combination post hoc comparisons revealed that
the group given analogies in the instructional text in conjunction with the
analogous antecedent text (B + C(A)) selected significantly fewer items related
to the analog than the other groups given instructional texts or the control
group.
In general,
the data showed that subjects given some background
information on the game of cricket were better able to discriminate between
instances which were and which were not related to the game of cricket if
discriminations were made in direct connection with a particular cricket
match situation.
Knowledge of cricket, however, was not so firmly established
and finely differentiated that discriminations could reliably be made without
reference to a particular cricket match situation.
That is, there was a
significant difference in the ability of subjects to discriminate when given a
cricket match situation; outside the context of a specific cricket match
Effects of Analogy
30
situation to which instances could be tied, subjects did not significantly
vary in making discriminations.
Discussion
At the outset, it was suggested that the central purpose of the present
study was to investigate whether attempts to increase background knowledge,
especially through analogy, would have an impact upon a reader's comprehension
and learning.
Of particular interest were answers to the following questions:
Did any attempt to increase background knowledge influence
comprehension and learning?
Did attempts to increase background knowledge using alternative
modes of analogy influence comprehension and learning differentially?
Did readers with varying amounts of background knowledge of
the analogous material
respond differentially
to the various
comprehension and learning tasks?
Did the impact resulting from attempts to increase background
knowledge remain stable across the passages which were recalled?
Did the comprehension and learning resulting from attempts to
increase background knowledge coincide with schema-theoretic
notions of comprehension and knowledge acquisition as well as
other theoretic notions of reader involvement?
For purposes of discussion, the results of the study are related to each
of these questions.
Did any attempt to increase background knowledge influence comprehension
and learning?
Across almost all analyses the data suggested that the more
information subjects were given about the unfamiliar topic, the better was
Effects of Analogy
31
their performance on the written recall task as well as predictiondiscrimination tasks.
instructional
On the written recall tasks, all of the subjects given
texts (treatment conditions B + C(A),
produced significantly more information at all
the control subjects (X + X),
X + C(A),
B + C, X + C)
levels of generality than
who were not given such texts.
For the
first recall task, the findings with respect to the total number of units,
the number of text reproductions, text entailments and text evocations
consistently favored those subjects given information for the unfamiliar
topic; for the second recall task, this trend was consistent for the total
number of units recalled and for text reproductions alone.
In terms of
performance on the prediction and discrimination tasks, subjects given
background information were better able to make accurate predictions and
to discriminate information consistent with a specific instance of the
unfamiliar topic.
In terms of the latter, subjects given information on
the unfamiliar topic were better than control
subjects in being able to
make discriminations if the information was connected to a specific
instance of the topic.
In light of the dearth of support from similar
empirical endeavors, the present results should be viewed as being far
from trivial.
Unlike most other studies in which attempts have been made
to increase background knowledge, the present data provide strong support
for the efficacy of the treatment conditions over the control condition.
In this regard, the data provide some clarification of the nature of the
effects of increasing background knowledge upon comprehension and learning.
Effects of Analogy
32
Did attempts to increase background knowledge using alternative modes
of analogy influence comprehension and learning differentially?
Pairwise
and combination comparisons indicated that differences observed in the
subjects' performance on three of the recall measures as well as on one
of the prediction-discrimination tasks varied according to the method by
which analogy was presented in text.
Differences in the number of text
reproductions produced in response to the first recall task favored the
use of analogy embedded in the instructional text together with the
analogical antecedent text (B + C(A)); differences in the number of text
entailments favored the use of the analogical antecedent text
(B + C(A),
B + C); differences in the number of text evocations favored the use of
the analogies either embedded or as an antecedent text [(X + C(A)) + (B + C)
+ (B + C(A))] over the presentation of information without analogical
qualities.
On the prediction and discrimination tasks, subjects given
analogy were not distinguished from subjects given texts without analogy in
predicting appropriate outcomes to the given cricket match situations.
Nor
were they distinguished from the non-analogy subjects in their ability to
identify irrelevant information independently of a particular context.
However, the group given analogy both in the advance text and embedded
in the instructional text (B + C(A)) were better able to discriminate between cricket and non-cricket information if the discriminations were made
within the context of a particular cricket match situation.
In general,
then, the use of these alternative modes of presenting information did have a
Effects of Analogy
33
differential impact which tended to favor the use of analogy over the
presentation of information without analogical qualities.
This was
especially the case with respect to the extent to which readers' recalls
were integrated.
Specifically, alternative modes of presenting analogy
prompted recalls which were more reader-based--that is, more text evocations
were produced--and they prompted learning which was reflected in certain
types of discrimination and not others.
Did readers with varying amounts of background knowledge respond
differentially to the various comprehension and learning tasks?
The data
revealed scant, if any, association between treatment effects and subjects'
level or prior background knowledge of the analogous material.
The only
indication of a differential response related to the background knowledge
was given by high knowledge subjects on the second recall task, where
they produced significantly more text evocations than other control
subjects.
That result by itself can at best only hint that those subjects
had been cued by the first recall task to turn to their store of relevant
analogous knowledge for application in reading and recalling the second
passage.
The failure of the present study to find other differences across
levels of analogous background knowledge may well have resulted from
design limitations.
On the pre-experimental baseball knowledge survey,
very few of the subjects scored as low as the highest-scoring baseballnaive person who completed the survey in the validation procedures.
Effects of Analogy
34
Within the range obtained, an attempt was made to segment subjects into
three levels of knowledge--high, moderate, and low.
It seems
doubtful,
however, that the three groups represented discrete levels of knowledge,
since there was a limited interval separating the scores of the low and
moderate groups and the moderate and high groups.
That several of the
differences across levels of text-analogous knowledge in the present study
approached significance suggests that if there had been more separation
between levels of knowledge, significant differences might have been obtained.
Did the impact resulting from attempts to increase background knowledge
remain stable across the passages which were recalled?
Significant differ-
ences between treatment groups persisted across both recall tasks on only
one measure of recall, that of text reproduction.
Differences between the
groups on text-entailed and text-evoked recall measures on the first written
recall task faded on the second recall task.
recall task itself to neutralize treatment effects on
enough fromthe first
the second recall
Perhaps the subjects learned
task.
Perhaps subjects were cued during the first
task
to independently resort to their own store of analogous knowledge for use
in the second task.
Perhaps subjects learned to cope with the novel demands
of the recall task during their first attempt.
on task we had no way to ensure that
on-line
A hypothesis which was not pursued was the
Without controlling time
processing remained constant.
effects of attempts to increase
background knowledge upon the behavior of readers during comprehending.
Any of these possibilities point to the limitations not only of the present
study, but comprehension and learning research in general; they emphasize
Effects of Analogy
35
the need to address research on learning from text with a great deal of
suppleness.
Procedures for delineating individual differences need to be
carefully operationalized; methods of measuring on-line processing as well
as other aspects of comprehension and learning need to be included.
Did the comprehension and learning which resulted from attempts to
increase background knowledge coincide with schema-theoretic notions of
comprehension and knowledge acquisition as well as other theoretic notions
of reader involvement?
The data collected in the present study were examined
from theoretical perspectives that explain the amount of information recalled
(Kintsch,
Kozminsky,
Sterky,
McKoon,
& Keenan,
1975; Marshall,
1976) as
well as the inverse relationship between explicit recall and generalized
recall
(Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Spiro, 1977).
According to these per-
spectives, the more the involvement of the reader, the more information recalled and the greater the integration of text information with reader knowledge.
The data provided substantial support for these perspectives; further,
they emphasize one reason for involvement or
noninvolvement with text:
degree of knowledge about the topic of the text.
Indeed, it would appear
that subjects given texts with analogy recalled more total units of recall
and interacted with text to a greater extent than subjects who were given
texts without analogy and that they gained a better sense of the texts'
meaning.
Further, the advance presentation of analogy in the form of an
antecedent text seemed to provide for retention of explicitly stated information, but analogy embedded in text seemed to provide for more generalized
treatment of the text.
Where two modes of presenting analogy were combined
Effects of Analogy
36
(B + C(A)), significantly more text-based
information was generated on both
passages than by the group given analogy by text embedding only (X + C(A)),
but significantly less reader-based information than generated by the latter
group at least on the first passage.
Although the measures devised to address
schema specialization and generalization were neither discrete nor comparable,
the performance of the subjects on the prediction and discrimination tasks
suggested that knowledge gained from the instructional texts had begun to
form some other transfer values of relevance to these notions.
Subjects
given background information related to the tasks were better able to make
predictions for the open-ended text-related situations.
Also, they were
better able to discriminate information consistent with the topic if that
information was connected to a specific instance of the topic.
Subjects
given background information related to the tasks were not more able than
control group subjects to make discriminations between topic-consistent and
topic-inconsistent information when that information was not presented in
some particular context.
Subjects given analogy both in the advance text
and embedded in the instructional text appeared to make the best contextrelated discriminations between instances and non-instances of the topic.
In terms of the notions of schema specialization and generalization, the
data from the present study did suggest knowledge appeared first to generalize to specific instances on the novel content and then to specialize within
the context of those specific instances.
The data indicated that indepen-
dent generalization of knowledge, that is, generalization within specific
applicative contexts, did not appear to be achieved by the subjects in this
investigation.
Effects of Analogy
37
Implications for Research
What implications can be drawn for further research which examines
attempts to increase background knowledge?
The present study raised more
For
questions about increasing background knowledge than it answered.
example, the present study investigated only four ways of presenting unfamiliar information.
The differential effects of other modes of presenting
information need to be investigated in order to determine their instructional
efficacy for meeting specific instructional goals.
With respect to presenting
information through analogy, examples of other modes which might be investigated include analogical annotation, analogical questions, analogous and
vicarious experiences, self-generated and selected analogies, concurrent
reading on analogous topics, and analogical study guides.
also be made with other aids to textual
Comparison might
instruction such as illustrations,
as well as concrete and abstract examples.
Increasing background knowledge
has been studied in connection with some of these other aids to instruction,
but conclusive findings as to their effectiveness are lacking.
What is
significant about the present study is that it confirms the worth of such
endeavors and suggests some guidelines for future research studies.
What guidelines for conducting similar research are prompted?
In terms
of design considerations, the present study raised several important issues.
Differences were noted across levels of treatment and prior analogous knowledge that could not have been detected by the overall measure of recall
typically used in previous studies.
Analysis of text recalls by levels
of generality appeared to afford the detection of such differences in recalled
information not obtainable by an overall measure of text recall.
If suggested
Effects of Analogy
38
that differential
information on the responses of readers to question types
may help researchers specify how and what other learning takes place.
Alternatively, the pre-study failed to adequately address several important
variables.
First, the extent to which the treatment conditions as employed
in the present study focused attention on the more important information
of the text was not ascertained from the recall data.
Recalled information
by level in the idea structure of the passages could not be clearly interpreted since text reproductions could not be analyzed together with text
entailments at each level.
For example, text entailment that summarized
propositions variously located in a passage's idea structure could not be
assigned a single level in the ideational structure,
Second, subjects responded to experimental texts immediately following
their presentation; neither delayed
measures were used.
posttest
nor on-line processing
Furthermore, given the findings that there were
differences in text-based and reader-based information across the recall
tasks,
the issue of the stability of background differences might have been
pursued further.
Third, readers' interest in the analogous material was considered in
this study only to the extent of controlling its potential influence on
the dependent measures.
The interactive effects of analogy with subjects'
interest in the analog were not investigated.
From a practical standpoint
such investigation appears to be warranted.
Fourth, subjects involved in the present study did not represent
extreme levels of background knowledge and no attempt was made to assess
Effects of Analogy
39
individual differences
in background knowledge after the introduction of
the instructional texts.
Given this limitation and the fact that many
of the differences in measures approached significance, it might have
been worthwhile to have sought subjects who represented a greater separation
in knowledge about baseball.
Concluding Remarks
In general,
encouraging.
the findings of the present study should be considered
They support assertions by educators, philosophers, and psy-
chologists that attempts to increase background knowledge facilitate
learning unfamiliar material.
The present attempts using alternative modes
of analogy did promote learning from text.
That the different ways in
which attempts were made to increase knowledge differentially influenced
learning indicates a need to move from broad notions about the instructional
utility of strategies directed toward increasing background knowledge toward
more refined and differential concepts about their application.
Of theo-
retical and practical relevance, then, the use of analogies and other methods
for increasing background knowledge appear to offer promise as a means of
examining issues of relevance for dealing with unfamiliar information.
Effects of Analogy
4O
Reference Notes
1.
Analogical processes and procedural
Rumelhart, D.
(CHIP Rep. No. 81).
Human
2.
Drum, P. A.
3.
Meyer,
B. J.
1978,
Structural and thematic variations on fourth graders
types of recall,
Educational
University of California, Center for
San Diego:
Information Processing,
representations
Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Research Association,
F.,
textual schema:
Brandt,
D. M.,
San Francisco, April 1979.
& Bluth,
G. J,
Use of author's
Key for ninth graders' comprehension,
Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Toronto,
March 1978.
Effects of Analogy
41
References
But is
Abramson, M.
Anderson, R. C.,
it
cricket?
Spiro, R. J.,
Ambassador,
1979,
& Anderson, M,
12, 36-39, 84-86.
Schemata as scaffolding
for the representation of information in connected discourse.
American Educational Research Journal,
Ausubel, D. P.
The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention
of meaningful verbal material.
1960,
Ausubel,
1961,
Journal of Educational Psychology,
267-272.
51,
D. P.,
verbal
1978, 15, 433-440,
& Fitzgerald, D.
The role of discriminability in meaningful
learning and retention.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
52, 266-274.
Bartlett, F. C.
Remembering.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,
1932.
Black, M.
Models and metaphors;
Ithaca, N.Y.:
Campbell, N. R,
Studies in language and philosophy.
Cornell University Press,
Physics, the elements,
1962,
Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press, 1920,
Capps, L. R.
Teaching mathematical concepts using language arts analogies,
The Arithmetic Teacher,
Dowell, R. E,
1979,
17,
329-331.
The relation between the use of analogies and their effects
on student achievement on teaching a selected concept in high school
biology.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1968.
Effects of Analogy
42
The facilitating effect of selected analogies on understanding
Drugge, N. L.
Unpublished
of scientific explanations.
University of Alberta,
Fry, E.
doctoral
dissertation,
1977.
A readability formula that saves time.
Journal of Reading, 1968,
11(7), 513-516.
Using analogies to help students become more versatile readers.
Kahn, N. B.
The Clearing House,
51, 329-334.
1978,
[Critique of pure reason] (F. M. Muller, trans.),
Kant, 1.
Anchor Books, 1966.
N.Y.:
Kerlinger, F. N.
Holt,
(Originally published, 1781.)
Foundations of behavioral
Rinehart & Winston,
research
(2nd ed.).
Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, N.J.:
1974,
Kozminsky, E.,
Kintsch, W,,
New York:
1973,
The representation of meaning in memory,
Kintsch, W.
Garden City,
Sterky, W. J,, McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M.
Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables.
Journal of Verbal
& van Dijk, T. A.
Kintsch, W.,
production.
Larson, R.
Learning and Verbal Behavior,
Toward a model of text comprehension and
Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363-394,
Young filmmakers.
Lehr, P. E.,
14, 196-214.
1975,
New York:
Burnett, R., Zin, S.,
Avon Books, 1969.
& McNaught, H.
Weather.
New York:
Press, 1965.
Marshall, N.
doctoral
The structure of semantic memory for text.
dissertation,
Cornell University, 1976,
Unpublished
Golden
Effects of Analogy
43
Mayer, R. E.
Different problem-solving competencies established in learning
computer programming with and without meaningful models.
Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 725-734.
Meyer, B. J. F.
The structure of prose:
Effects on learning and memory
and implications for educational practice.
& W. E. Montague
Hillsdale,
Neisser, U.
(Eds.),
N.J.:
Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge.
Erlbaum, 1977.
Cognition and reality:
psychology.
Nelson, R. F.
San Francisco:
Principles and implications of cognitive
Freeman,
1976.
Use of analogy as a learning-teaching tool,
Geography,
1975,
74,
schemata, and memory representation,
and instruction.
Royer, J.
Hillsdale, N.J.;
Music and language:
Education Journal,
M., & Cable,
Journal of
83-86,
Norman, D. A., Gentner, D. R., & Stevens, A. L.
Oliphant, R.
In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro,
Comments on learning,
In D. Klahr (Ed.),
Cognition
Erlbaum, 1976.
A new look at an old analogy.
Music
1972, 58, 60-63.
G. W.
Facilitated
learning in connected discourse.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 116-123.
Royer, J. M.,
& Cable, G. W.
Illustrations, analogies and facilitative
transfer of prose learning,
68, 205-209.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976,
Effects of Analogy
44
Rumelhart, D. E.,
& Ortony, A.
The representation of knowledge in memory.
In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling
and the acquisition of knowledge.
Scheffe, H. A.
Smith, F. A.,
Hillsdale, N.J.:
The analysis of variance.
& Wilson, J. D.
New York:
Erlbaum, 1977.
Wiley, 1959.
Electrical circuits and water analogies.
The Physics Teacher, 1974, 12, 396-399.
Spearman, C.
London:
Spiro, R. J.
The nature of intelligence and the principles of cognition.
Macmillan, 1923.
Remembering information from text:
The "state of schema"
In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.),
approach.
Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge.
Hillsdale, N.J.:
Erlbaum,
1977.
Swick, K. J.,
& Miller, H. C.
thinking skills.
Thorndyke, P. W.,
Utilization of analogies to teach critical
The Clearing House, 1975, 48, 180-182.
& Yekovich, F. R.
human story memory.
Turner, A., & Greene, E.
A critique of schemata as a theory of
Poetics, in press.
The construction and use of propositional text
base (Tech. Rep. No. 63).
Boulder:
for the Study of Intellectual
University of Colorado, Institute
Behavior,
April
Webster's Sports Dictionary (R. Copeland, Ed.).
1977.
Springfield, Mass.:
Merriam, 1976.
Weller, C. M.
The role of analogy in teaching science.
Research in Science Teaching, 1970, 7,
113-119.
Journal of
Effects of Analogy
45
Footnotes
lSchema specialization, as Rumelhart and Ortony describe it, means
constraining schema variables so as to reduce the possible values that may
be assigned to yield a representation of information; reducing assignable
values specializes the schema so that it yields more highly differentiated
representations.
Schema generalization, conversely,
means extending the
possible values that schemata may assign to yield a representation of
information;
relaxing the constraints on schematic variables results in
a representation which is more abstract or generalized,
Effects of Analogy
46
mi o
0
cn
C
a)
CU
L
ci
a)
C
o
\O %0
00
%D
o-
o
.0
O
LAr
r*
L
cO
N
oo
-0
\D
LA
-
r--
-
-
L'
N
'
-4:
LA,
'rm
C
N
"o
en
U
M:
O
C
0
0
00
N
(n
c
rn
CD
(Y
o
C
0
LO
0
4-J
E
L-
rI L1
o
0- c o
.N
L.
en
0
4C
0
OU
N
a)
C
40
CN LA
m
1%0
"
00
N
4-)
X
a)
C
ci
\0
v0
-
vD
*-
0
0
II
0
ci
4-
0
CD
0)
4-
a-
4-
00
0o
F--
0
a0)
o.
>
<u
a).1
r%
-
--
r-
co
Q|
II
C
c
CU
a)
4CD
0()
-T-
00
-T
0
0D
-
rioo
-
o
00
o
4~J
CU
a)
in
0
*-L
rf - -o L
1.-i
c|
~0
L
~0
c
CU
*1-.'
0
0
00
L0
0
S
-sroo
LAr
LrA
CM
-
-
o
.-
II
LA-
N
Lo
--
00
c
+-o
Cu
4-J
0
c
CD
a)
m
a)
4ci
M
00
CM
0
M
-
0
CN
CU
L-
L
a)
E
E
(U
0
2O
a)
C
0)
.8-i
0
Q.
z
E :3
0
I-N%4
-^
C%4
A
Effects of Analogy
47
00
rN
00
0-
o
0
--
c
U)
a)
O
cl
ca
u
00
O
o
00
o
oo
m
N
0
-T
r
0C
\
00
O)
O
0
-
-
-
C-
oo
o
o-
NN\N
00L
0
C
0
0
*-1
u)
E
0
L-
0)
0
0
4n
(U
4C
c
N
C-
CD
a)
fu
4-
0
x
<n
N
o
o00
ao
o
CI
II
cI
40
a)
4-J
41-
O
(O
>
O
C
0
00
N
Nx
-r
x
-
00
0
--
(
-*
N
N
N
N
-
N
O
00
o
0
00
-N
Ln
00
,-
o0
0)
-1
-0
0
0
0
-x
x
'o
4-
0
4-
C
Co
a)
r-
c
-4-
0>
a)
II
fl
c
0 Sto U
14
0
0
0U
L
N
-T
_:
0m
'
CM
NO
N
OM
4-J
>
CD
c
a)
ci
0\
LC
4-
N
O
00
0
-N
mO
?1
LO\
-0
Ct
CD
4-i
00
I-0
N
LM
\
00
0
LU\
\.
N
L(\
o
-
N
-=r
0o
cl
L.
-C
CO
00
0Io
C
ro
11
•z
(U
4-
-
0
0
0
0
0
a)
(0
O
>
0
a)
4-'
(
0-
CD
L-
I-
CQ
X
NM
co
X
X
'^
-0
L(
Effects of Analogy
48
en
0
L0Effects
-0-
CM_
D
LA%
r-.
o
o
-
0
a0
o
-%
0
N
00
m
-O
LO
-0
-0
'
o0
'0
S0
ON
-
00
A
r.
S
00
o
c
0
00
00
-
0D
0
r
o
0
CM
(1
'0
o0
(-
-
\10
.O
vo
a
CM
co
--
o-
o
c|
<u
cO
0
cU)
--
00
-o
"0
0)
0
4-J
0
L
Q|
U)
a)
en
Co
C
0
4-)
('4
. c|
cCo
U)
H
44-
-J
X
U)
O
0
E
4-
0
10
o
40
C
-
n
(nm
Sc0o
H-
ci
- 4/
(/I
>
-
(U
.-
-
o-
II
c
LA1
>)
(U
ef-
-sr
eo
-r
CM
-*
II
r-
OO
c
Co
U)
0
0-..
\.
00
--
-o
ci
o
.
0
0
\O0
0"
0
.*-
oo
o--
Co
0
U)
C-
-
4-J
(0
0
*CH
o
O,
-O.
-o
C
c
co
-0
Co
4~)
9--
o
o
r- 0oLAC) o,c_:
1
0
H
Cr
(0)
0
0 -41-- -- r--,.
.0
N
LA
-0
00
-0
00
00
C.0
001%
M
--
-.
00
t:
CO
E
E
ci|
(0
O
0
0
0
0
z)
4-J
0
E
Co
O,
-
I--
X
M
CQ
X
X
-m
CL
of
48Analogy
Effects of Analogy
49
o<
0)
c
0
0-»
c
0
-
-
L
h-_
rl-_
0
o
_-r
..
-C%
(L
O
S*%
0)
0
0
N
0
c|
0
a)
4-J
u
:3
-0
0
Q.0
c
(NJ
.O
O
O
LA
-7
LO
\O
v.("
C
0)
Lr\
%0
L0r
LO
A
0C
00
C1
c
(a
a)
0
7
0
0
0
Ix
0
4J
1-
O
0
(3
II
ci
F--
40
c|
--
- 0--
Noo
C:
0
m
.J
o
.
co
No
o
cl
II
*--
c
C
(a
f0
-0
r,
oe
0
C
N
0
C
0
%0
LO
-0
oA
e-
-*
O
0
oL,
o
-0
LA
e-I-
0
O
a)
i0
-NO
"o
L(
C|
n
o00o
0
e
o
0
-o
C
-0
4+--
NO
N-
LA
LA
LA
0C
0
0e
LA
0
LA
-t
LA
O
N-
-
LA
-
LA
00
-:t-
E
(0
0
)-
c
(a
a)
O4
N-
II
0
C
(a
a)
0
E
ci
L.
al)
0
za)
.4-i
c
a)o-
0
4~iQ
(aL
L
H
(-NM
Ov
-v
LA
Effects of Analogy
50
r-.
o
00oo
\.
-
LA\
on
00
o-r
(N
0n
(.
U)
S
CM
00
- %l
U)
;
O
*-.0
00
_:
C)
t%\
r
Lr\
r-
0
0
U)
4-J
U)
U)
E
0
c
CN
Lr\
*-J
c
o
O,1%rm
lo
U)
0
U)
0
F-
(U
C
40
L.
_)
o
U\
0
(N
C
(U
U)
U-\
cO
00
o
0
-L
-.
-:-
LO
(M
0
0
.1-I
ci
U)
H
E
'.0
'0
-«3
'.0
'.0
cl
0
0
LU
(U
U)
U)
c
m
0
in
-(U
>
U--
-
00
0
C
o0
r-
-*-
-f
L(\
L(
0
Lt
0o
(N
N(
(N
C
c(U
U)
N.
-:1-
L(\
(
NM
-- f
0
0
-=r
O
4-J
(D
(
-o
L
ci
-0
o
co0
0
00;
-0
L
0
V/)
-0
cC
'.0
(N
-
4-
•
-: •
(-U
0
M
--
(U
(O
(N
c
(U
H
0--
,,
LC\
c
C
0
L\
co00 --r
0
(N
0
(N-
O1
L'\
c
-:-
c)
(I
ci
tLn
N
0
(N
L.
0
0
1U)-.
+
C~)
L)
L)
><
+
+
+
+
><
a~
><
~-
~-
~-
(N
(v~
-~
L(~
o
Effects of Analogy
51
5|
N
-:i-
r~
N
-~
o
LC\
e~
rv~
N
-~
N
N
N
r00
CO
(0)
c
00
ON
o0
0
0
Q)
c:
v
a)
ni
va
Lo
t
A
-o
4-J
a)
E
0
000' -_-r 0-C
CM
CM
10
0
(U
40
(n)
H
o
o
r~
~o
r~~1
N
a)
N
a0
0
a)
o
0
N
0
CM
-:*
N
N
N
NC
N
0
Cf-i
Cv'
'~D
0o
0
-~
N
N
L1
N
00
0
00
\0
a)
-J
0-
c
-0
tr\
0
0
N
4-i
.1-J
>
0
a)
H
<4- 0
(U
(U
a)
.1-i
Z
a)
C
NM
C
L.
(a
-0
E
0
N
0
w
C
N
N
4-
0
C."
N,
c
(U
a)
(U
-
N
N
0
CM
0(
*^
CM
-3-
c
0
4-J
C
0
C
OTi
4-J
-o
oa
c
-0
L
c
CM
-- ,
0
LA\
CO
U)
NC
-
0
L--
(U
H-
C0%
-r
L(\
'-
LC\
0
0
C0
CN
N
NC
0
0
L(
(U
E
0
E
(0
4-J
c
0
) CL.
E 3
)
+
+
CO
X
-
CM
C-)
C-)
+
+
+
x
L-
H_
x
-:3-
LA•
Effects of Analogy
52
00
o•
0
c
0
N
CJ
00
N
C
rn
r
o
0
o
o
0
m
N
0
o
I
0-
L
o'
0
-
CM
-
CU
U)
o
-:1-
U)
c
ci
O
0*
0
0
0
0
U)
L.
o-
0
0)
0
-.
C>
4-J
N
c
-
x
4-
0
0
0
4-
co
0
II
4-1
0
Z
cl
0
L
--
t
0
>
-J
-
0E
-c
h0
0-
o
>
0
m
c
U
CU
ci)
4--
P-
-
00
00
o
-N-
CM
00
m
0
co
r
co?
ac
00
NC
L\-
N
LAr
i
LC\
0
0
N
0
0\
LA
N
in
-
f
ci
-0
-
4-
0
T11
0
4-J
0-
0
fD
-o
CN
-0
L-
N
ND
0
0
H-
c
CU
U)
N
m00
^
m
00
CU
I-,
0
co
N
-)
-
N
N
o
N
0
N
L)
c~)
+
+
Loo
0ý
4-J
c
40
ci
~
0
N
+
+
X
X
E
4-
c
E 3
4- 0
+
CO
L-
H-
N
~
v-
LA
O
Effects of Analogy
53
N
M
N-O
00
Cr
N4
If)
c
**
(u
Lt\
•-
0
110
e'
00
C
C
0
o-
NC
v-
0
00
CM
-L
0)
-o
0)
(n
0
CM
0
0
o'
00
00
-=r
L.
0
00
0
0
--Z
N
0
N
4-)
0
:3
C
O(
4-
ru-
LJ
N
;M
NM
c
lu
-
-
_
LC\
N
4-
0
x
c|
4-
0
'0
-
-0
II
cl
l<U
(u
>E
(
(U
(n
0
>
0)
N
CM
Ct)
M
0
00
00
0
.n
c
0
E
4
(n
>
0)
c
(U
un
0
-r
0)
N
00
-
c
LrA
-=r
CN
I-C
U
cv;
c0
4-J
>
(U
0)
ci
-0
O
00
0
O
O~i
0
4-J
-o
-J
-o
o00
4-'
I .
00
V
LC\
r-
c
(U
4O
4-'
0)
H-
ci
1
00
rC
N
CO
N
--
>u
LtA
LA
-ov
o00o -rT
r
NC
o
o
o-~
L)
(~)
(~)
(~)
+
+
+
+
><
co
)<
N
("s
1-
N
N
N
N
0
N
0
N
EO
':3:
4-J
c
0) Q.
E
L.-
H-
3
-~
+
r-
-o
I-
Effects of Analogy
54
--
LA
C
rco
--
\D0A
r--
-"r
On
00
-
-
0
o
o
\
-•-
ul
"-
o
U\
o
ILA
oCr
00
LA
-T
LA
0
C
LA
o
Ltr
N
L0
0
o
Effects of
54Analogy
cl
0
c4-J
C)
0
e---
0
L)
L.
00
O
L-
1
C
0
0
0
N
4-0
o oo oo
%
LL
(c
r--
0
Lr\
0
N
m
0
I
4-)
x
U)
oo
-
-- r
o
0o
II
H
40
0
>U
N
0
-=f
-=T
NM
U)
.J
N
N
-
00
-
oO
CO
00
O
03
O
00
N%:
N
0
r
LO
L0
LA
0C
LA
C00
(U
o
m
c
FE
o
0o
c
(U
U)
(U
N
0
N
c
40
4-I
ci
Lo
0
C
4E0
--
00
0
00
0m
-M
-M
--
-
-
o0
LA
LA
0
00
-
0
00
LA
'0
DO
'0
NM
0
OT
0
CO
X
X
--
LA
4-1
f0
-o
I0
>
(0
(U
4-'
0
H
c
(U
U)
N
(I,
ci
cED
) O
L.
H-
So
CO
-
X
M
(1
Effects of Analogy
55
o
^o
r-
*--
%,
,--
-r-
c
-:1-
cn(~
o
0
Ný
N
i0
Q)
C)
0
(C)
9-
4-
C
0
CN
1.)
L.
LO
U\
0n
o
..
o
01
O
-Lt
0
r--
o
o
-
-r
o
c3
0
-o
CD
N
00
C
CD
C)
00
0
4-J
x
C
0
C)
-D
E
z
O
0
4-i
II
C
I4-
c
Lu\
N
Q)
-j_.I.1
0
0
ci
c-
m
4-J
,-
O
4-.
0
-
O
o
o
-- r
L
r-
0o
C)
0
N
L\
0C
0-
e'^
00
n
o
0
%o
--
c
0
- i
N
+--
C)
.0
c
0
L
-
c.
4J
0
cI
0
I
o0
00
o
c
I0
f0
c-
L)
0
,-u
c
U)
4-J
LCI
Lr
0
n
00
00
r
N
-4r
IIoo
cCD
H0
rl
c
0
CD
0
1.
0
N
ci
0
N
0-
0
N
LO
E
0
U')
4J
'4:
c
L)
0
0
-W
0
CDI-
+
+
+
+
+
cy~
X
C
X
>-
X
>1
0)
Q.
E =
X
Q)C
CM
m
,-.1"
0
Effects of Analogy
56
0
00
o
o
oo
LA
O
00
cn
C
CU
0)
N
0
o
\D
C)
460
ci
*-
O
4-
u
c
a-
4- 0c
-a
E
4--
>
--
x
LL
)O
S-
4-J
0
0
LA
C) C
-
-O
-
LA
LA
00
56Analogy
Effects of
0o
o
O
0
:3
0
0)
NC
o1
-_z
-.
(0)
CD
CU
0
o00
LO
0)
0
0)
r
-Z
N
CI
2E
4-)
Ci
0
oC)
M
-
LA
cr
0e
-T
C)
M
-_o
C)
LA
LA
(
<
r
N
r-
LA
00
LA
00
00
0
O0
LA
0
-
\-
\-
-O
-
N
'.0
0
00
II
0
0
0
40)
*
o
00
-
c
0)
00
4-J
0
0"
_Q
o
4-0
-
-
4-0
-o
n
n
-^-
...I
>
II
E
L
c
LA
-
(U
C'
C)
0
r-•
-_
o
0C
C
C
0
0
CN
CN
O
LA
*.0
*4-J
CU
>
c
'-
E>
c
(C
0
2
0.
C
0
(U-
L
i)
00
E
2
0
()
'C
S00
0
LA
\.0
00
-r
LA
M
O0
--
o00
-:T
0N
c
LA
-U
m
-3
-o
(-
4-J
0
c
CU
0)
\.0
r.
o
00
LA
O
r*
oC)
00
*
ci
}
M
0)
C)
0
N
XC)
M
X
CO
X
X
CM
I--
ED
L4I--
ro
Effects of Analogy
57
Figure Captions
Figure 1.
analogies.
Portions of instructional texts with and without embedded
(It should be noted that underlining was not used in the text
during the experiment.)
Figure 2.
Test Passage One (based on "Wood's 100 helps to restore
self-respect," The Australian, December 30, 1978).
Cricket is a bat and ball game played between two teams of 11
players each on a large grassy field.
American game of baseball developed.
take turns at bat.
field.
It is
from cricket that the
In a cricket match, the teams
While one team bats the other team defends the
The object of the batting team is to score runs, while the
object of the fielding team is to dismiss batsmen.
Unlike baseball,
there are always two batsmen in play at the same time.
Batsmen score
runs by exchanging positions on the field.
The center of activity is
an area
in the middle of the field
called the pitch, which corresponds to the infield in baseball.
At
both ends of the pitch stands a wicket consisting of three vertical
called stumps,
sticks,
resting across the top.
with two horizontal sticks,
Wickets are a bit like home plate in base-
They provide a target for .
ball.
called bails,
. .
Cricket is a bat and ball game played between two teams of 11
players each on a large grassy field.
It
is one of the most popular
games in England and several other British Commonwealth countries.
In a cricket match, the teams take turns at bat.
the other team defends the field.
While one team bats
The object of the batting team is
to score runs, while the object of the fielding team is
batsmen.
to dismiss
In cricket there are always two batsmen in play at the same
Batsmen score runs by exchanging positions on the field.
time.
The center of activity is
an area in the middle of the field
called the pitch, which measures 10 feet wide by 66 feet long,
At
both ends of the pitch stands a wicket consisting of three vertical
sticks,
called stumps,
resting across the top.
wide.
with two horizontal
sticks,
called bails,
Wickets are 28 inches high and nine inches
They provide a target for . . .
A hair raising century by
Australian opener Graeme Wood
on Friday set England back on
its heels in the third test at
the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
Unfortunately,
living danger-
ously eventually cost the Australians the match.
Wood was
caught out of his crease on the
first over aftelr lunch.
Within
ten more overs, the Australians
were dismissed.
Four were dis-
missed by dange rous running between creases.
Two were dis-
missed when the English bowlers
lifted the bails
from the bats-
men's wickets.
The three re-
maining batsmen were caught by
English fieldsmen.
One was
caught as he tried for a six.
When the innings were complete
the Australians had fallen short
of the runs scored by the
Engl ish.
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING
READING EDUCATION REPORTS
No. 1: Durkin, D. Comprehension Instruction--Where are You?, October 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 566, 14p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 2: Asher, S. R. Sex Differences in Reading Achievement, October 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 567, 30p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 3: Adams, M. J., Anderson, R.C., & Durkin, D. Beginning Reading: Theory and Practice, November
1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 151 722, 15p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 4: Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. Teaching Reading Comprehension in the Middle Grades, January 1978.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 151 756, 36p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 5: Bruce, B. What Makes a Good Story?, June 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 158 222, 16p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 6: Anderson, T. H. Another Look at the Self-Questioning Study Technique, September 1978. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 163 441, 19p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 7: Pearson, P. D., & Kamil, M. L. Basic Processes and Instructional Practices in Teaching Reading,
December 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 165 118, 29p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 8: Collins, A., & Haviland, S. E. Children's Reading Problems, June 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 172 188, 19p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 9: Schallert, D. L, & Kleiman, G. M. Some Reasons Why Teachers are Easier to Understand than
Textbooks, June 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 172 189, 17p., PC-$1.82, MF$.83)
No. 10: Baker, L
Do I Understand or Do I not Understand: That is the Question, July 1979. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 174 948, 27p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 11: Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading, August 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 470, 52p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 12: Joag-dev, C., & Steffensen, M. S. Studies of the Bicultural Reader: Implications for Teachers and
Ubrarians, January 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 430, 28p., PC-$3.32, MF.
$.83)
No. 13: Adams, M., & Bruce, B. Background Knowledge and Reading Comprehension, January 1980.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 431, 48p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 14: Rubin, A. Making Stories, Making Sense (includes a response by T. Raphael and J. LaZansky),
January 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 432, 42p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 15: Tierney, R. J., & LaZansky, J. The Rights and Responsibilities of Readers and Writers: A Contractual Agreement (includes responses by R. N. Kantor and B. B. Armbruster), January 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 447, 32p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 16: Anderson, T. H., Armbruster, B. B., & Kantor, R. N. How Clearly Written are Children's Textbooks?
Or, Of Bladderworts and Alfa (includes a response by M. Kane, Senior Editor, Ginn and Company),
August 1980.
No. 17: Tierney, R. J., Mosenthal, J., & Kantor, R.N. Some Classroom Applications of Text Analysis:
Toward Improving Text Selection and Use, August 1980.
No. 18: Steinberg, C., & Bruce, B. Higher-Level Features in Children's Stories: Rhetorical Structure and
Conflict, October 1980.
No. 19: Durkin, D. What is the Value of the New Interest in Reading Comprehension?, November 1980.
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING
TECHNICAL REPORTS
No. 1: Halff, H. M. Graphical Evaluation of Hierarchical Clustering Schemes, October 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 926, 11p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 2: Spiro, R.J. Inferential Reconstruction in Memory for Connected Discourse, October 1975. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 187, 81p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 3: Goetz, E. T. Sentences in Lists and in Connected Discourse, November 1975. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 134 927, 75p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 4: Alessi, S. M., Anderson, T. H., & Biddle, W. B. Hardware and Software Considerations in Computer
Based Course Management, November 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 928,
21p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 5: Schallert, D. L. Improving Memory for Prose: The Relationship between Depth of Processing and
Context, November 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 929, 37p., PC-$3.32, MF$.83)
No. 6: Anderson, R.C., Goetz, E. T., Pichert, J. W., & Halff, H. M. Two Faces of the Conceptual Peg
Hypothesis, January 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 930, 29p., PC-$3.32,
MF-$.83)
No. 7: Ortony, A. Names, Descriptions, and Pragmatics, February 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 134 931, 25p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 8: Mason, J. M. Questioning the Notion of Independent Processing Stages in Reading, February
1976. (Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977, 69, 288-297)
No. 9: Siegel, M. A. Teacher Behaviors and Curriculum Packages: Implications for Research and
Teacher Education, April 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 932, 42p., PC$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 10: Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., Goetz, E. T., Schallert, D. L., Stevens, K. C., & Trollip, S. R. Instantia-
tion of General Terms, March 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 933, 30p., PC$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 11: Armbruster, B.B. Learning Principles from Prose: A Cognitive Approach Based on Schema
Theory, July 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 934, 48p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 12: Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. Frameworks for Comprehending
Discourse, July 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 935, 33p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 13: Rubin, A. D., Bruce, B. C., & Brown, J. S. A Process-Oriented Language for Describing Aspects of
Reading Comprehension, November 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 188,
41p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 14: Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R.C. Taking Different Perspectives on a Story, November 1976.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 936, 30p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 15: Schwartz, R.M. Strategic Processes in Beginning Reading, November 1976. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 134 937, 19p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 16: Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. Curriculum Biases in Reading Achievement Tests, November 1976.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 938, 24p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 17: Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Wigfield, A. Children's Comprehension of High- and Low-Interest
Material and a Comparison of Two Cloze Scoring Methods, November 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 939, 32p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 18: Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., Day, J. D., Townsend, M. A. R., & Lawton, S. C. Intrusion of a Thematic
Idea in Children's Comprehension and Retention of Stories, December 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 189, 39p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 19: Kleiman, G. M. The Prelinguistic Cognitive Basis of Children's Communicative Intentions, February 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 940, 51p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 20: Kleiman, G. M. The Effect of Previous Context on Reading Individual Words, February 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 941, 76p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 21: Kane, J. H., & Anderson, R.C. Depth of Processing and Interference Effects in the Learning and
Remembering of Sentences, February 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134 942,
29p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 22: Brown, A. L, & Campione, J. C. Memory Strategies in Learning: Training Children to Study Strategically, March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 234, 54p., PC-$4.82, MF-
$.83)
No. 23: Smiley, S. S., Oakley, D. D., Worthen, D., Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L Recall of Thematically
Relevant Material by Adolescent Good and Poor Readers as a Function of Written Versus Oral
Presentation, March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 235, 23p., PC-$1.82,
MF$-.83)
No. 24: Anderson, R.C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. Schemata as Scaffolding for the Representation
of Information in Connected Discourse, March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 136 236, 18p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 25: Pany, D., & Jenkins, J. R. Learning Word Meanings: A Comparison of Instructional Procedures
and Effects on Measures of Reading Comprehension with Learning Disabled Students, March 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 237, 34p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 26: Armbruster, B. B., Stevens, R.J., & Rosenshine, B. Analyzing Content Coverage and Emphasis: A
Study of Three Curricula and Two Tests, March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 136 238, 22p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 27: Ortony, A., Reynolds, R. E., & Arter, J.A. Metaphor: Theoretical and Empirical Research, March
1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 137 752, 63p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 28: Ortony, A. Remembering and Understanding Jabberwocky and Small-Talk, March 1977. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 137 753, 36p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 29: Schallert, D. L., Kleiman, G. M., & Rubin, A. D. Analyses of Differences between Written and Oral
Language, April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 038, 33p., PC-$3.32, MF$.83)
No. 30: Goetz, E.T., & Osborn, J. Procedures for Sampling Texts and Tasks in Kindergarten through
Eighth Grade, April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 565, 80p., PC-$6.32, MF-
$.83)
No. 31: Nash-Webber, B. Anaphora: A Cross-Disciplinary Survey, April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 039, 43p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 32: Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. A Schema-Theoretic View of Reading Comprehension, April 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 971, 49p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 33: Huggins, A.W. F. Syntactic Aspects of Reading Comprehension, April 1977. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 142 972, 68p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 34: Bruce, B. C. Plans and Social Actions, April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 149 328, 45p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 35: Rubin, A. D. A Theoretical Taxonomy of the Differences between Oral and Written Language,
January 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 550, 61p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 36: Nash-Webber, B., & Reiter, R. Anaphora and Logical Form: On Formal Meaning Representation
for Natural Language, April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 973, 42p., PC$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 37: Adams, M. J. Failures to Comprehend and Levels of Processing in Reading, April 1977. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 410, 51p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 38: Woods, W. A. Multiple Theory Formation in High-Level Perception, April 1977. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 144 020, 58p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 40: Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. Inference in Text Understanding, December 1977. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 547, 48p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 41: Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift
in Perspective, April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 974, 37p., PC-$3.32,
MF-$.83)
No. 42: Mason, J., Osborn, J., & Rosenshine, B. A Consideration of Skill Hierarchy Approaches to the
Teaching of Reading, December 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 549, 176p.,
PC-$12.32, MF-$.83)
No. 43: Collins, A., Brown, A. L, Morgan, J. L, & Brewer, W. F. The Analysis of Reading Tasks and Texts,
April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 404, 96p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 44: McClure, E. Aspects of Code-Switching in the Discourse of Bilingual Mexican-American Children,
April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 975, 38p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 45: Schwartz, R. M. Relation of Context Utilization and Orthographic Automaticity in Word Identification, May 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 137 762, 27p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 46: Anderson, R.C., Stevens, K.C., Shifrin, Z., & Osborn, J. Instantiation of Word Meanings in Children, May 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 976, 22p., PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
No. 47: Brown, A. L. Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember: A Problem of Metacognition, June
1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 562, 152p., PC-$10.82, MF-$.83)
No. 48: Brown, A. L., & DeLoache, J. S. Skills, Plans, and Self-Regulation, July 1977. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 144 040, 66p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 49: Goetz, E. T. Inferences in the Comprehension of and Memory for Text, July 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 548, 97p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 50: Anderson, R.C. Schema-Directed Processes in Language Comprehension, July 1977. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 142 977, 33p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 51: Brown, A. L. Theories of Memory and the Problems of Development: Activity, Growth, and
Knowledge, July 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 041, 59p., PC-$4.82, MF$.83)
No. 52: Morgan, J. L. Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts, July 1977. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 145 405, 40p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 53: Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., & Lawton, S. C. The Effects of Experience on the Selection of Suitable
Retrieval Cues for Studying from Prose Passages, July 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 144 042, 30p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 54: Fleisher, L. S., & Jenkins, J. R. Effects of Contextualized and Decontextualized Practice Conditions on Word Recognition, July 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 144 043, 37p.,
PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 55: Jenkins, J. R., & Larson, K. Evaluating Error Correction Procedures for Oral Reading, June 1978.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 158 224, 34p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 56: Anderson, T. H., Standiford, S. N., & Alessi, S. M. Computer Assisted Problem Solving in an Introductory Statistics Course, August 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 563, 26p.,
PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 57: Barnitz, J. Interrelationship of Orthography and Phonological Structure in Learning to Read,
August 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 546, 62p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 58: Mason, J. M. The Role of Strategy in Reading in the Mentally Retarded, September 1977. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 406, 28p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 59: Mason, J. M. Reading Readiness: A Definition and Skills Hierarchy from Preschoolers' Developing Conceptions of Print, September 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 403,
57p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 60: Spiro, R.J., & Esposito, J. J. Superficial Processing of Explicit Inferences in Text, December
1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 545, 27p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 65: Brewer, W. F. Memory for the Pragmatic Implications of Sentences, October 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 564, 27p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 66: Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. S. The Development of Strategies for Study Prose Passages, October
1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 371, 59p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 68: Stein, N. L., & Nezworski, T. The Effects of Organization and Instructional Set on Story Memory,
January 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 149 327, 41p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 69: Stein, N. L. How Children Understand Stories: A Developmental Analysis, March 1978. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 153 205, 68p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 76: Thieman, T. J., & Brown, A. L. The Effects of Semantic and Formal Similarity on Recognition
Memory for Sentences in Children, November 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 150 551, 26p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 77: Nash-Webber, B. L Inferences in an Approach to Discourse Anaphora, January 1978. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 552, 30p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 78: Gentner, D. On Relational Meaning: The Acquisition of Verb Meaning, December 1977. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 149 325, 46p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 79: Royer, J. M. Theories of Learning Transfer, January 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 149 326, 55p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 80: Arter, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. Differential Diagnosis-Prescriptive Teaching: A Critical Appraisal,
January 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 578, 104p., PC-$7.82, MF-$.83)
No. 81: Shoben, E. J. Choosing a Model of Sentence Picture Comparisons: A Reply to Catlin and Jones,
February 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 150 577, 30p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 82: Steffensen, M. S. Bereiter and Engelmann Reconsidered: The Evidence from Children Acquiring
Black English Vernacular, March 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 153 204, 31p.,
PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 83: Reynolds, R.E., Standiford, S. N., & Anderson, R.C. Distribution of Reading Time When Questions
are Asked about a Restricted Category of Text Information, April 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 153 206, 34p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 84: Baker, L. Processing Temporal Relationships in Simple Stories: Effects of Input Sequence, April
1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 157 016, 54p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 85: Mason, J. M., Knisely, E., & Kendall, J. Effects of Polysemous Words on Sentence Comprehension, May 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 157 015, 34p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 86: Anderson, T. H., Wardrop, J. L., Hively W., Muller, K. E., Anderson, R. I., Hastings, C. N.,
&
Fredericksen, J. Development and Trial of a Model for Developing Domain Referenced Tests of
Reading Comprehension, May 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 157 036, 69p.,
PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 87: Andre, M. E. D. A., & Anderson, T. H. The Development and Evaluation of a Self-Questioning
Study Technique, June 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 157 037, 37p., PC-$3.32,
MF-$.83)
No. 88: Bruce, B. C., & Newman, D. Interacting Plans, June 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 157 038, lOOp., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 89: Bruce, B. C., Collins, A., Rubin, A. D., & Gentner, D. A Cognitive Science Approach to Writing, June
1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 157 039, 57p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 90: Asher, S. R. Referential Communication, June 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 159 597, 71 p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 91: Royer, J. M., & Cunningham, D.J. On the Theory and Measurement of Reading Comprehension,
June 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 157 040, 63p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 92: Mason, J. M., Kendall, J. R. Facilitating Reading Comprehension Through Text Structure Manipulation, June 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 157 041, 36p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 93: Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J. Interpreting Metaphors and Idioms:
Some Effects of Context on Comprehension, July 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 157 042, 41p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 94: Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Barclay, C. R. Training Self-Checking Routines for Estimating
Test Readiness: Generalization from List Learning to Prose Recall, July 1978. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 158 226, 41p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 95: Reichman, R. Conversational Coherency, July 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 159 658, 86p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 96: Wigfield, A., & Asher, S. R. Age Differences in Children's Referential Communication Performance: An Investigation of Task Effects, July 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 159 659, 31p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 97: Steffensen, M. S., Jogdeo, C., & Anderson, R.C. A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Reading
Comprehension, July 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 159 660, 41p., PC-$3.32,
MF-$.83)
No. 98: Green, G. M. Discourse Functions of Inversion Construction, July 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 160 998, 42p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 99: Asher, S. R. Influence of Topic Interest on Black Children and White Children's Reading
Comprehension, July 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 159 661, 35p., PC-$3.32,
MF-$.83)
No. 100: Jenkins, J. R., Pany, D., & Schreck, J. Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension: Instructional
Effects, August 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 160 999, 50p., PC-$3.32, MF-
$.83)
No. 101: Shoben, E. J., Rips, L J., & Smith, E. E. Issues in Semantic Memory: A Response to Glass and
Holyoak, August 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 159 662, 85p., PC-$6.32, MF-
$.83)
No. 102: Baker, L, & Stein, N. L The Development of Prose Comprehension Skills, September 1978.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 159 663, 69p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 103: Fleisher, L S., Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. Effects on Poor Readers' Comprehension of Training in
Rapid Decoding, September 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 159 664, 39p., PC$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 104: Anderson, T. H. Study Skills and Learning Strategies, September 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 161 000, 41p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 105: Ortony, A. Beyond Uteral Similarity, October 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 166 635, 58p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 106: Durkin, D. What Classroom Observations Reveal about Reading Comprehension Instruction,
October 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 162 259, 94p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 107: Adams, M. J. Models of Word Recognition, October 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 163 431, 93p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 108: Reder, L.M. Comprehension and Retention of Prose: A Literature Review, November 1978.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 165 114, 116p., PC-$7.82, MF-$.83)
No. 109: Wardrop, J. L., Anderson, T. H., Hively, W., Anderson, R. I., Hastings, C. N., & Muller, K. E. A Frame-
work for Analyzing Reading Test Characteristics, December 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 165 117, 65p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 110: Tirre, W.C., Manelis, L., & Leicht, K. L. The Effects of Imaginal and Verbal Strategies on Prose
Comprehension in Adults, December 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 165 116,
27p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 111: Spiro, R. J., & Tirre, W. C. Individual Differences in Schema Utilization During Discourse Processing, January 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 166 651, 29p., PC-$3.32, MF$.83)
No. 112: Ortony, A. Some PsycholinguisticAspects of Metaphor, January 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 165 115, 38p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 113: Antos, S. J. Processing Facilitation in a Lexical Decision Task, January 1979. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 165 129, 84p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 114: Gentner D. Semantic Integration at the Level of Verb Meaning, February 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 165 130, 39p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 115: Gearhart, M., & Hall, W. S. Internal State Words: Cultural and Situational Variation in Vocabulary Usage, February 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 165 131, 66p., PC-$4.82,
MF-$.83)
No. 116: Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. The Effect of Background Knowledge on Young
Children's Comprehension of Explicit and Implicit Information, March 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 169 521, 26p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 117: Barnitz, J. G. Reading Comprehension of Pronoun-Referent Structures by Children in Grades
Two, Four, and Six, March 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 731, 51p., PC$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 118: Nicholson, T., Pearson, P. D., & Dykstra, R. Effects of Embedded Anomalies and Oral Reading
Errors on Children's Understanding of Stories, March 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 169 524, 43p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 119: Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W., & Shirey, L. L. Effects of the Reader's Schema at Different Points
in Time, April 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 169 523. 36p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 120: Canney, G., & Winograd, P. Schemata for Reading and Reading Comprehension Performance,
April 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 169 520, 99p.. PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 121: Hall, W. S., & Guthrie, L. F. On the Dialect Question and Reading, May 1979. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 169 522, 32p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 122: McClure, E., Mason, J., & Barnitz, J. Story Structure and Age Effects on Children's Ability to
No.
No.
No.
No.
Sequence Stories, May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 732. 75p.. PC-$4.82,
MF-$.83)
123: Kleiman, G. M., Winograd, P. N., & Humphrey. M. M. Prosody and Children's Parsing of Sentences, May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 733, 28p., PC-$3.32. MF-$.83)
124: Spiro, R. J. Etiology of Reading Comprehension Style, May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 170 734. 21p.. PC-$1.82, MF-$.83)
125: Hall, W. S., & Tirre. W. C. The Communicative Environment of Young Children: Social Class,
Ethnic, and Situational Differences, May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 170 788, 30p., PC-$3.32. MF-$.83)
126: Mason, J., & McCormick, C. Testing the Development of Reading and Linguistic Awareness,
May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 735. 50p.. PC-$3.32. MF-$.83)
No. 127: Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. Permissible Inferences from the Outcome of Training Studies in
Cognitive Development Research, May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 736,
34p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 128: Brown, A. L, & French, L A. The Zone of Potential Development: Implications for Intelligence
Testing in the Year 2000, May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 737, 46p.,
PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 129: Nezworski, T., Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. Story Structure Versus Content Effects on Children's
Recall and Evaluative Inferences, June 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 172 187,
49p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 130: Bruce, B. Analysis of Interacting Plans as a Guide to the Understanding of Story Structure,
June 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 174 951, 43p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 131: Pearson, P. D., Raphael, T., TePaske, N., & Hyser, C. The Function of Metaphor in Children's
Recall of Expository Passages, July 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 174 950,
41p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 132: Green, G. M. Organization, Goals, and Comprehensibility in Narratives: Newswriting, a Case
Study, July 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 174 949, 66p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 133: Kleiman, G. M. The Scope of Facilitation of Word Recognition from Single Word and Sentence
Frame Contexts, July 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 174 947, 61p., PC-$4.82,
MF-$.83)
No. 134: McConkie, G. W., Hogaboam, T. W., Wolverton, G. S., Zola, D., & Lucas, P. A. Toward the Use of
Eye Movements in the Study of Language Processing, August 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 174 968, 48p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 135: Schwartz, R.M. Levels of Processing: The Strategic Demands of Reading Comprehension,
August 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 471, 45p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 136: Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. Vocabulary Knowledge, August 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 480, 71p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 137: Royer, J. M., Hastings, C. N., & Hook, C. A Sentence Verification Technique for Measuring Reading Comprehension, August 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 176 234, 34p., PC$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 138: Spiro, R.J. Prior Knowledge and Story Processing:
Integration, Selection, and Variation,
August 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 176 235, 41p., PC-3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 139: Asher, S. R., & Wigfield, A. Influence of Comparison Training on Children's Referential Communication, August 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 493, 42p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 140: Alessi, S. M., Anderson, T. H., & Goetz, E.T. An Investigation of Lookbacks During Studying, September 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 494, 40p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 141: Cohen, P. R., & Perrault, C.R. Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts, September
1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 497, 76p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 142: Grueneich, R., & Trabasso, T. The Story as Social Environment: Children's Comprehension and
Evaluation of Intentions and Consequences, September 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 177 496, 56p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 143: Hermon, G. On the Discourse Structure of Direct Quotation, September 1979. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 177 495, 46p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 144: Goetz, E.T., Anderson, R.C., & Schallert, D. L. The Representation of Sentences in Memory, September 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 527, 71p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 145: Baker, L. Comprehension Monitoring: Identifying and Coping with Text Confusions,September
1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 525, 62p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 146: Hall, W. S., & Nagy, W. E. Theoretical Issues in the Investigation of Words of Internal Report,
October 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 526, 108p., PC-$7.82, MF-$.83)
No. 147: Stein, N. L, & Goldman, S. Children's Knowledge about Social Situations: From Causes to
Consequences, October 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 524, 54p., PC-$4.82,
MF-$.83)
No. 148: Hall, W. S., & Guthrie, L F. Cultural and Situational Variation in Language Function and Use:
Methods and Procedures for Research, October 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 179 944, 49p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 149: Pichert, J. W. Sensitivity to What is Important in Prose, November 1979. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 179 946, 64p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 150: Dunn, B. R., Mathews, S. R., II, & Bieger, G. Individual Differences in the Recall of Lower-Level
Textual Information, December 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 448, 37p.,
PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 151: Gentner, D. Verb Semantic Structures in Memory for Sentences: Evidence for Componential
Representation, December 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 424, 75p., PC$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 152: Tierney, R.J., & Mosenthal, J. Discourse Comprehension and Production: Analyzing Text
Structure and Cohesion, January 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 179 945, 84p.,
PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 153: Winograd, P., & Johnston, P. Comprehension Monitoring and the Error Detection Paradigm,
January 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 425, 57p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 154: Ortony, A. Understanding Metaphors, January 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 181 426, 52p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 155: Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. Studying, January 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 181 427, 48p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 156: Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. Inducing Flexible Thinking: The Problem of Access, January
1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 428, 44p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 157: Trabasso, T. On the Making of Inferences During Reading and Their Assessment, January
1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 429, 38p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 158: McClure, E., & Steffensen, M. S. A Study of the Use of Conjunctions across Grades and Ethnic
Groups, January 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 182 688, 43p., PC-$3.32, MF-
$.83)
No. 159: Iran-Nejad, A. The Schema: A Structural or a Functional Pattern, February 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 449, 46p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 160: Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. The Effect of Mapping on the Free Recall of Expository
Text, February 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 182 735, 49p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 161: Hall, W.S., & Dore, J. Lexical Sharing in Mother-Child Interaction, March 1980. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 184 066, 39p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 162: Davison, A., Kantor, R. N., Hannah, J., Hermon, G., Lutz, R., Salzillo, R. Limitations of Readability
Formulas in Guiding Adaptations of Texts, March 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 184 090, 157p., PC-$10.82, MF.$.83)
No. 163: Linn, R.L, Levine, M. V., Hastings, C. N., & Wardrop, J. L. An Investigation of Item Bias in a Test
of Reading Comprehension, March 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 184 091,
97p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 164: Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Leiman, J. M. The Time Course of Lexical Ambiguity
Resolution in Context, March 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 184 092, 58p., PC$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 165: Brown, A. L Learning and Development: The Problems of Compatibility, Access, and Induction, March 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 184 093, 76p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 166: Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. The Effects of Inference Training and Practice on Young
Children's Comprehension, April 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 186 839, 53p.,
PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 167: Straker, D.Y. Situational Variables in Language Use, April 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 185 619, 49p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 168: Green, G. M., Kantor, R. N., Morgan, J. L., Stein, N. L., Hermon, G., Salzillo, R., Sellner, M. B.,
Bruce, B. C., Gentner, D., & Webber, B. L Problems and Techniques of Text Analysis, April 1980.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 513, 173p., PC-$10.82, MF-$.83)
No. 169: Green, G. M., Kantor, R. N., Morgan, J. L, Stein, N. L, Hermon, G., Salzillo, R., & Sellner, M. B.
Analysis of Babar Loses His Crown, April 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 185 514, 89p., PC-$6.32, MF-$.83)
No. 170: Green, G. M., Kantor, R. N., Morgan, J. L, Stein, N. L, Hermon, G., Salzillo, R., & Sellner, M. B.
Analysis of "The Wonderful Desert," April 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 185 515, 47p., PC-$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 171: Zehler, A. M., & Brewer, W. F. Acquisition of the Article System in English, May 1980. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 186 907, 51p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 172: Reynolds, R.E., & Ortony, A. Some Issues in the Measurement of Children's Comprehension of
Metaphorical Language, May 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 542, 42p., PC$3.32, MF-$.83)
No. 173: Davison, A. Linguisticsand the Measurement of Syntactic Complexity: The Case of Raising,
May 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 186 848, 60p., PC-$4.82, MF-$.83)
No. 174: Tirre, W.C., Freebody, P., & Kaufman, K. Achievement Outcomes of Two Reading Programs:
An Instance of Aptitude-Treatment Interaction, June 1980.
No. 175: Asher, S. R., & Wigfield, A. Training Referential Communication Skills, July 1980.
No. 176: Tanenhaus, M. K., & Seidenberg, M. S. Discourse Context and Sentence Perception, July 1980.
No. 177: Hall, W. S., Linn, R. L., & Nagy, W. E. Spoken Words, August 1980.
No. 178: Tanenhaus, M. K., Flanigan, H., & Seidenberg, M. S. Orthographic and Phonological Activation in
Auditory and Visual Word Recognition, August 1980.
No. 179: Green, G. M. Linguistics and the Pragmatics of Language Use: What You Know When You
Know a Language... and What Else You Know, August 1980.
No. 180: Steffensen, M. S., & Guthrie, L.F. Effect of Situation on the Verbalization of Black Inner-City
Children, September 1980.
No. 181: Green, G. M., & Laff, M. 0. Five-Year-Olds' Recognition of Authorship by Literary Style, September 1980.
No. 182: Collins, A., & Smith, E. E. Teaching the Process of Reading Comprehension, September 1980.
No. 183: Reynolds, R.E., & Anderson, R.C. Influence of Questions on the Allocation of Attention during
Reading, October 1980.
No. 184: Iran-Nejad, A., Ortony, A., & Rittenhouse, R. K. The Comprehension of Metaphorical Uses of
English by Deaf Children, October 1980.
No. 185: Smith, E. E. Organization of Factual Knowledge, October 1980.
No. 186: Hayes, D. A., & Tierney, R.J. Increasing Background Knowledge through Analogy: Its Effects
upon Comprehension and Learning, October 1980.